Existing post-hoc explainers for machine learning classifiers primarily focus on feature attribution, assigning importance scores to individual features. While valuable, this approach struggles to articulate the complex, combinatorial patterns that often drive a model's decision-making process. To overcome this limitation, we introduce ProToMEx, a new paradigm for explainability that leverages Probabilistic Topic Models (PTMs). Our model-agnostic framework learns latent ''topics'' that represent distinct, high-level reasons for a classification, moving beyond simple feature importance to reveal underlying semantic structures. ProToMEx naturally provides both global explanations of a model's overall behaviour and local explanations that can disentangle multiple co-existing reasons for a specific prediction. We demonstrate empirically that ProToMEx not only produces explanations of comparable fidelity to popular methods like SHAP and LIME but also drastically reduces the amortised computational cost of generating local explanations, making it highly suitable for real-time applications. Specifically, we show that ProToMEx is ~30-40x faster than SHAP and LIME over standardised tabular datasets and synthetic datasets.
Figures & tables
Setting
# Features
# Labels
# Patterns
Size
F8P10L2
8
2
10
20000
F8P6L3
8
3
6
20000
F9P10L2
9
2
10
30000
F9P6L3
9
3
6
30000
F10P4L2
10
2
4
20000
F10P10L2
10
2
10
20000
Table 1. Synthetic datasets description We used 60% of the dataset for training the classifier, 35% for training ProToMEx and 5% for testing.
Dataset
Size (# data points)
#Feat
Labels
Training
Corpus
Testing
Loan
31751
12349
900
14
Binary
Lungs
2116
824
60
15
Binary
Wine
14816
5767
420
11
Multiple
Air
3526
1374
100
10
Multiple
Table 2. Publicly available datasets description
Setting
Corpus
ProToMEx
Explain Instance ( ×10−2 sec)
Gen (sec)
training (sec)
SHAP
ProToMEx
F8P10L2
1.53
54.97
0.46
0.12
F8P6L3
2.33
86.14
0.97
0.13
F9P10L2
1.59
62.09
0.97
0.14
F9P6L3
2.32
90.72
1.77
0.14
F10P4L2
1.72
59.91
3.87
0.15
Table 3. Synthetic Datasets. Average time required for ProToMEx vs SHAP
Setting
Detected
Most Probable
Most Similar
Weighted Avg
Topics
Relevant Topic
Relevant Topic
of Relevant Topics
F8P10L2
0.81
0.75
0.78
0.66
F8P6L3
0.77
0.71
0.74
0.69
F9P10L2
0.75
0.7
0.71
0.61
F9P6L3
0.77
0.66
0.73
0.66
F10P4L2
0.82
0.71
0.76
0.68
Table 4. Similarity between topics and original patterns
Dataset
Corpus
ProToMEx
Explain Instance ( ×10−2 sec)
Gen (sec)
training (sec)
SHAP
LIME
ProToMEx
Loan
1.68
117.92
1320.04
3.74
0.125
Lungs
0.07
6.001
94.3
2.29
0.121
Wine
1.56
26.71
484.6
2.46
0.106
Air
0.3
5.933
121.6
2.76
0.095
Table 5. Publicly Available Datasets. Average time required for ProToMEx vs SHAP vs LIME.
Dataset
# Influential Features
# Instances with # Missing Influential Features Equal to ( = )
SHAP
ProToMEx
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Loan
5.27
9.63
332.83
283.58
164.5
37.92
13.33
63.5
4.33
0
0
0
0
Lungs
10.203
10.234
0.36
4.44
6.48
8.12
14.88
16.2
9.04
0.44
0.04
0
0
Wine
4.12
8.87
67.2
76.8
118.1
114.6
36
7.3
0
0
0
0
0
Air
5.73
7.21
5.73
33.08
37.14
20.44
3.36
0.25
0
0
0
-
-
Table 6. Average number of influential features according to SHAP and average number of influential features found by ProToMEx (across the whole testing dataset). Average number of instances (within testing dataset) that ProToMEx missed x influential features.
Dataset
# Influential Features
# Instances with # Missing Influential Features Equal to ( = )
LIME
ProToMEx
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Loan
5.39
9.63
261.17
246
238.67
16.33
34.83
3
0
0
0
0
0
Lungs
8.56
10.23
0.72
4.32
13.48
20.2
15.48
5.04
0.68
0.08
0
0
0
Wine
4.12
55.4
68.6
115.3
130.2
43.7
6.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
Air
5.67
7.21
4.87
31.87
36.69
23.3
3.01
0.26
0
0
0
-
-
Table 7. Average number of influential features according to LIME and average number of influential features found by ProToMEx (across the whole testing dataset). Average number of instances (within testing dataset) that ProToMEx missed x influential features.
Figure 1. Explaining single instance in Synthetic Datasets: SHAP vs ProToMEx.
Figure 2. Explaining single instance in Publically Available Datasets: SHAP vs ProToMEx.
Dataset
Missing Influential Features
≥6
≥7
≥8
≥9
≥10
Loan
5.38
2.88
1
0.13
0
Lungs
9.2
5.08
3.04
2.08
1.32
Wine
9
3.4
0.5
0
0
Air
3.73
1.08
0.19
0.04
0
Table 8. Average missing influential features by SHAP, when SHAP is forced to miss to sample the top-3 most influential features.
Interpretability is central for scientific machine learning, as understanding why models make predictions enables hypothesis generation and validation. While tabular foundation models show strong performance, existing explanation methods like SHAP are computationally expensive, limiting interactive exploration. We introduce ShapPFN, a foundation model that integrates Shapley value regression directly into its architecture, producing both predictions and explanations in a single forward pass. On standard benchmarks, ShapPFN achieves competitive performance while producing high-fidelity explanations (R2=0.96, cosine=0.99) over 1000\times faster than KernelSHAP (0.06s vs 610s). Our code is available at https://github.com/kunumi/ShapPFN
Luan Borges Teodoro Reis Sena, Francisco Galuppo Azevedo
Kunumi Institute, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil · Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Formal explainability provides mathematically grounded justifications for individual predictions. However, abductive explanations often exceed human cognitive limits by involving too many features, while probabilistic relaxations have remained largely limited to categorical classification. We present a unified framework for probabilistic explainability based on sparse, anchored linear models, applicable to both binary classification and continuous regression. By mapping instances to the Boolean hypercube, our linear explanations strictly generalize subset-based approaches: they capture both the magnitude and direction of feature contributions while enforcing a prescribed sparsity budget k. We show that minimizing the relevance error for such explanations is \ClassNPPP-hard when the underlying model is a neural network, and we relate this intractable objective to a tractable surrogate---the fidelity error. For a parameterized family of local distributions, the relevance error of any k-sparse explanation is bounded by its fidelity error up to a multiplicative factor that remains small locally. We address the resulting empirical problem using two complementary approaches: a Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) formulation that yields provably optimal empirical solutions while maintaining polynomial sample complexity, and a polynomial-time Iterative Hard Thresholding (IHT) algorithm with provable approximation guarantees. Empirical evaluations show that, unlike state-of-the-art baselines such as LIME and MAPLE, our explanations satisfy both the anchoring and sparsity constraints by construction, while consistently achieving lower relevance error.
Frederic Koriche, Jean-Marie Lagniez, Chi Tran
Computer science Research Institute of Lens (CRIL), UMR CNRS 8188, University of Artois, Rue Jean Souvraz SP 18, Lens, F-62307, France
LLMs have advanced text classification, yet existing paradigms face a trade-off: supervised (label only) fine-tuning is scalable but offers limited reasoning on complex text and lacks broader model transparency, while discrete prompt optimization offers human-readable instructions but struggles with performance and scalability. We introduce eXTC (eXplainable Text Classifier) with three progressive stages: (1) learning a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP, or rulebook) in natural language via a new Structured Prompt Optimization algorithm; (2) SOP-grounded reasoning distillation from a large teacher LLM into a compact LM; and (3) expanding reasoning capabilities beyond the initial SOP via reinforcement learning. This design enables eXTC to provide (i) fast inference via a compact LM, with (ii) inference-time local reasoning traces, alongside a global, modular explanation of its learned domain rules, while (iii) significantly outperforming existing paradigms across diverse benchmarks in both classification performance and explanation quality, with stage-by-stage gains.
Tianyang Zhou, Wenbo Chen, Pierre Jinghong Liang +1